Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

America's fury wrote:

Carbon Isotopes wrote:

Rojo why in the world are you more fixated on the carbon in her shoes, or lack thereof, over the carbon in her dope? The report literally shows that the drug can't come from pork via carbon analysis and you're over here blathering about shoes.

Rojo literally cannot distinguish facts from opinions.

At least not when it comes to running shoes. The plates are turning into the Don Quixote's windmills for the old timer.

suspicion in the ignition wrote:

Carbon Isotopes wrote:

Rojo why in the world are you more fixated on the carbon in her shoes, or lack thereof, over the carbon in her dope? The report literally shows that the drug can't come from pork via carbon analysis and you're over here blathering about shoes.

I take it he's raising the issue that still leaves him in doubt about the guilty verdict. It's interesting that someone appears to have integrity not to denigrate the spirit of the sport with shoes but would dope. That doesn't mean she's innocent (because there's no other explanation that currently fits the data), but it is a reason that some people may not be sold.

Did you guys not read what rojo said? He said he believes her not using the carbon plated shoes is evidence that she did dope.

Anyone participating in such a ridiculous I-ate-a-burrito story is either a fool or complicit. Shame on those providing witness statements, who exposed themselves too.

Both of the athletes you allege here have "said nothing" regarding Shelby Houlihan in fact signed onto a public letter opposing USATF's attempt to allow Houlihan to compete at the US Olympic Trials.

In Kara's case, this was not without risk, as she was a paid commentator at the Trials and could theoretically faced reprisal for bias from NBC. (I'm not saying this is likely -- Ato Bolden is still on their broadcasts, despite coaching a not insignificant number of athletes.)

Film Rep wrote:

Did they ever determine if the burrito contained guacamole and sour cream?

Ok so I am sitting here on the beach in Oceanside CA, just CHOWING DOWN on a carne asada burrito that I grabbed from Eriberto's ... well I just wanna say of course it has guacamole and sour cream.

Are you suggesting that these runners maybe DIDN'T order guacamole and sour cream on their carne asada burritos???? Now that's the real crime.

Oh well. Back to my chompin.

Omp omp omp

moultonk wrote:

LRC readers may recall two long posts I wrote on the Houlihan case, "The Railroading of Shelby Houlihan" and "Burritogate All Comes Down to Corn". While it is disappointing they have allowed the ruling to stand, I feel a sense of relief there is no new evidence or "smoking gun" in the report that undermines any of my previous arguments or observations. There are, however, several new pieces of information and World Athletics' case relies heavily on the testimony of expert witness John McGlone, which I will post about later. Nevertheless, it is obvious their own due process was not followed and that it is entirely possible Houlihan's positive sample was the result of tainted pork consumption.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10663437https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10694214

My man, expert testimony suggests that the right type of pig even ending up in the supply chain was 0.01%. Then factor that you still have to explain the aberrant carbon levels, how the wrong organs got introduced, that even given all that the levels found in her body were 2-3 times too high. If that's not the smoking gun that annihilates her story, then I really don't know what burden of proof you expect.

We're talking about infinitesimal odds her story explains the data. It's absurdly more likely that a professional athlete would cheat if we're talking probabilities. And if by some chance she didn't, then it got there through some other form. If you are holding on to the burrito story after this, no amount of evidence short of a confession will convince you.

As soon as you choose to ingest something, it is intentional. People cross into grey areas knowing they could get caught. It's not difficult at all to take approved supplements. If you ingest a banned substance, that's entirely on you and you will be banned for being at best negligent, at worst fraudulent.

There's a possibility that they were actually the Victory Elite 1, which not only have a carbon shank but a full forefoot plate. Not that it matters, because I don't believe the carbon hype on the track like I do the road.

briswiss wrote:

suspicion in the ignition wrote:

I take it he's raising the issue that still leaves him in doubt about the guilty verdict. It's interesting that someone appears to have integrity not to denigrate the spirit of the sport with shoes but would dope. That doesn't mean she's innocent (because there's no other explanation that currently fits the data), but it is a reason that some people may not be sold.

Did you guys not read what rojo said? He said he believes her not using the carbon plated shoes is evidence that she did dope.

And then in his very next paragraph he contradicted that stance.

RunRaider wrote:

Here's something that jumps out at me: In her defense, Shelby Houlihan testified that she supports incarceration for dopers.

Yet, Shelby Houlihan did not sign the Clean Sport Pledge, which obliges professional athletes to pay a $25,000 fine if found guilty of a doping offense. Then-BTC teammate Gwen Jorgensen is a signatory, so it's not likely that Shelby simply did not know the pledge existed.

If athletes want the benefit of the doubt in situations such as these, it would be easier to offer if they would put their money where their mouth is before they are at an appeals hearing following a positive test result.

Interesting take. Are there athletes who have signed but who have still be popped for doping?

Meaningless. Showing up on a list of names is not in line at all with her multi-year, multi-tweet, multi-blog post tantrum against her own teammates. This is not equivalent at all which is the point many of us are making.

moultonk wrote:

LRC readers may recall two long posts I wrote on the Houlihan case, "The Railroading of Shelby Houlihan" and "Burritogate All Comes Down to Corn". While it is disappointing they have allowed the ruling to stand, I feel a sense of relief there is no new evidence or "smoking gun" in the report that undermines any of my previous arguments or observations. There are, however, several new pieces of information and World Athletics' case relies heavily on the testimony of expert witness John McGlone, which I will post about later. Nevertheless, it is obvious their own due process was not followed and that it is entirely possible Houlihan's positive sample was the result of tainted pork consumption.

It’s weird to me that the technical documents say basically nothing about the evidence that athlete needs to provide that they consumed boar meat. Surely there is some burden on the athlete for that excuse, otherwise you’d just claim boar meat every time and force the testing center to run the pharmacokinetic test. Also the PK test would, I think, just show that the athlete consumed nandrolone orally — I don’t think it rules out taking a banned pro hormone or just nandrolone itself. The panel conceded that the nandrolone was oral.

There’s a lot of debate about whether the testing lab MUST do additional tests and the CAS decides that’s not the case. It’s rational to assume due process must include some judgement of the athletes meat consumption story, as it’s an unlikely enough event that a reasonable panel would probably favor doping over boar meat a priori.

I suspect there might be more nandrolone in the pork supply than people think, particularly during COVID, but it’s far too late to establish that for Shelby.

Looking forward to your analysis

nike shill wrote:

There's a possibility that they were actually the Victory Elite 1, which not only have a carbon shank but a full forefoot plate. Not that it matters, because I don't believe the carbon hype on the track like I do the road.

I will have to find a picture and report my findings

post nups wrote:

briswiss wrote:

Did you guys not read what rojo said? He said he believes her not using the carbon plated shoes is evidence that she did dope.

And then in his very next paragraph he contradicted that stance.

Exactly, which is why several of us have asked Rojo to clarify his position. His whole post would make more sense if more=less....

moultonk wrote:

Nevertheless, it is obvious their own due process was not followed and that it is entirely possible Houlihan's positive sample was the result of tainted pork consumption.

An honest question: I'm sure you explained it before, but what special expertise do you have that we should take you more seriously than any other poster here? Are you a biochemist, doctor, lawyer, or...? Are you in the industry? Or are you just another track fan?

On another topic, what does her ban cover? If she continues to train seriously can she still compete in domestic meets or would she be limited to TTs?

nike shill wrote:

nike shill wrote:

There's a possibility that they were actually the Victory Elite 1, which not only have a carbon shank but a full forefoot plate. Not that it matters, because I don't believe the carbon hype on the track like I do the road.

I will have to find a picture and report my findings

I thought it could have been as well, but the upper looks closer to the fly wire built into it with dynamic fly wire around the mid foot which is consistent with victory 2 instead of victory elite.

What a mess. A hugely improbable story, and expert witnesses who were massively incompetent - a hair analysis that didn't test for the very substances it was alleged she took, and a polygraph test that asked the wrong questions. I'm sure there's people who still want to believe she's innocent, and good on you, but this report is a systematic dismantling of her case.

I noticed the report said that USADA refused their right to intervene in this case, which makes me doubt that Rojo "source" who claimed that if USADA had jurisdiction in this case, it would have been dismissed. I think USADA knew this was likely to be a clear guilty verdict